gimpyshake

Come on CBS, I want more up close shots of the their piggy elitists faces crying. Isn't this what most people want to see?

I have been a fan of Futball/Soccer my entire life. The flopping has always bothered me and it only seems to be getting worse. I understand that acting up the effects of a foul in order to gain a free kick is part of the game. However, when you have a guy that barely gets touched writhing around on the ground like he stepped on a land mine, it really takes away credibility from the game. It is just sad to me to see high quality athletes looking like wafty piss ants. Personally I think that excessive flopping should be given at the very least a yellow card, if not a red card.

What do you think of the excessive flopping in soccer and what can be done to reduce it and readmit integrity to the game.

I happen to believe that 98% of the people in this country are decent people that are just looking to do good and be good. Unfortunately, the 2% that are most extreme and vocal in their opinions seem to have easier access to microphones and cameras. Do you feel that the extremists on either side are doing their own parties a disservice by being so vocal with their radical views?

And both sides are equally guilty. I believe that even at the "Tea Parties" most people are probably rational, good people. The media chooses to show the craziest individuals because news is about entertainment first and news second. The same goes for liberal led protests or marches. The crazies are usually more attractive to the cameras, while a majority of the even keel people are ignored. I blame the media more than anything else.

is incredibly disrespectful to the millions that died in the Gulags, and the millions that died under Pol Pot, or Mao Zedong or Castro. I feel that haphazardly throwing out the words Socialism and Communism to describe America in present time, shows an extreme lack of historical perspective. When the chicken little tea partiers scream that healthcare is the last step to communism, I feel that it makes them look extremely ignorant and contemptuous of the millions that have died under actual Socialist and Communist regimes.

I enjoy golf. I enjoy playing it and I like to occasionally watch it on television. I appreciate the difficulty and strategy invovled in a good golf game. But, I cannot figure out why golf is so far up its own *** when it comes to the "majesty" and its suppossed high pedigree. Why does the aura that surrounds golf think it is so superior to other sporting activities. How did a "sport" created by bored shepards become so lofty in status? Some of the soft spoken montages about the majesty of golf and in particular the Masters is nauseating.

People who yell "first" on a forum or status update, or people who yell "shopped" on a picture? Both groups of people are incredibly annoying. Nobody gives a monkey sh*t if you were the first to comment on something. And people usually don't care if an image is "shopped" or not. Both are idiots, but which group is the more moronic?

What would be a realistic timeframe for an averagely active person prepare for a marathon. I am not a complete fatass mind you, but I am not in great shape. Running a marathon is one of the things that appeal to me as a goal. What is a good way to train for such an ambitious activity, and what is a realistic timeframe/training schedule?

the erroneous jailing of the innocent, or the erroneous freeing of the guilty?

If Rupert Murdock wants to own a news media station that reflects the conservative ideals that he holds, doesn't he have a right to hire whoever he chooses to illustrate what he wants?

And if Time Warner (CNN) and GE (MSNBC) want to have news media reflect the bias that they choose, don't they as privately owned/publicly traded companies have the same right?

Where does it say that individual companies have to reflect views that they don't agree with. Don't viewers have the right to watch what they want? If someone doesn't like how MSNBC or FOX conduct themselves, don't they have a right to change the channel and shut the f*ck up?

News media is a product. Just as a box of cereal or a car are products. If Rupert Murdoch/GE are unhappy with a certain feature of his product, they should have the right to regulate the product how they choose. If the consumers of the product are unhappy with it, they as the consumer have every right to choose another product. News media also tells a story, and they should be able to tell a story however they feel without being forced to make everyone enjoy the story.

I don't think that media fairness is necessarily something that should be forced. Just as I feel that if an individual does say something controversial, that the company that he works for may fire him/her based on their prerogative.

Why is news media expected to maintain an "unbiased" perspective? Should news media outlets have the right to reflect whichever perspective they wish. I think that lunatics like Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman are at their best (according to their respective viewers) when they are able to say what they wish. If they were forced to maintain some level of "fairness" their products would be altered. The same goes for the general newscasts.

If Fox wants to maintain a conservative view, those that dislike it can shut up, change the channel and continue to hump their gay, organic polar bear.

And if someone is unhappy with the liberal bias of MSNBC, they can shut up, change the channel, and continue to tea-bag thier grandmothers' shotgun.

marry their pets and/or family members?

It seems that whenever some Christians and/or Conservatives start discussing their opposition to gay marriage the first thing they ask is "what if I want to marry my horse/dog/yak?" I really didn't realize that there was such a contigent of Americans that fantasized about beastiality.

Those that utilize such an argument, do you really not see the difference? Didn't you try to use the same argument in opposition to inter-racial marriage? Are people currently allowed to marry their pet marmot now that people can marry whoever they want outside of their race?

Why don't you support the right of two consenting adults to marry whoever they want?

If I ask a question that goes against what they believe, they automatically assume that I am on the complete other side of everything. Why do so many believe that people can be compartmentalized into two categories?

Politicians are all corrupt no matter what letter comes after their name. Neither side could give a sh*t about you or our country unless they can profit in some way. And having us fight amongst ourselves just allows them the ability to continue business as usual without any hindrance from "real change" Most politicians are arrogant elitists who are in the pocket of someone with more money. Dems are in the pocket of Wall Street and Reps are in the pocket of industrialists.

They just disagree about how to control the citizens.

Reps hold us down via a boot to the face and rarely give us any room to breathe. Dems on the other hand will occasionally throw us a bone to temporarily keep us satiated from time to time.

Isn't arguing about dems vs. reps or libs vs. cons akin to arguing about which position we will utilize while we are being taken advantage of? One side wants us to bend over and the other side wants us to get on our knees. Either way we wont win.

when it comes to what someone can or can't do to their own body. Or when it comes to who they want to love and marry. Or what they can or can't watch. Or what god or gods they want to or not to believe?

What some Conservatives really want is for the government to but out of the lives of other conservatives but closely monitor the lives of others.

Why should the "big bad government" regulate abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, censorship, or religious beliefs

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/08/oklahoma-abort...

Is it me, or is this coming kinda close to having Jews register in 1930's Germany. Why do Conservatives always want so badly to know about peoples personal matters, but still claim to want government out of their lives?

Is it acceptable and/or common practice to offer a lower rent if the renter is skilled and able to do some carpentry/plumbing/etc jobs around the house? What is a reasonable amount to lower the rent for such work?

seeing a photo or video that may be fake or photo-shopped or an endless barrage of idiots pointing out that the image is "fake" or "shopped"

If you feel better because you can figure out whether or not something is authentic or not and point it out to others, than you are a moron. Did you ever consider that some may not care whether or not it is authentic? The best is when so many people say something is fake and it is completely real. Morons.

A. Muslim

B. Communist

C. A Liberal radical

D. A Nazi

E. Socialist

Because he can't be all at the same time. maybe you should all get on the same page before you lob your ignorant insults at him. It really makes you look pretty idiotic when you accuse Obama of being a muslim communist, or a liberal nazi. its almost like you have no grasp on reality or history if you think those can go together.

Read a book, than get back to us.

Does she have down syndrome? Her music is terrible and she is bat-sh*t crazy.

Why does she remind me of a trailer park, sam the eagle, and a transexual french bourgeoisie whore all at the same time.

Does anybody really like her? And why? Can we send her and Kanye West on a mission to mars... without a return flight planned.

maybe I am just getting too old to understand today's crappy pop music.

Do you label yourself or others as "liberals" or "conservatives" or republican or democrat?

If you identify yourself as either, do you truely agree with EVERYTHING said by those on your side.

Why is it important to you to categorize people into meaningless boxes?

It seems as though which political ideaology one ascribes to is more important than what one truely believes. It seems silly to me that so many people fight over "republican vs democrat" or "liberal vs conservative" when the politicians who are in the parties are all relatively of the same mind.

It is no longer about sharing ideas and mutually working for a solution, it has now become about who can yell louder and who can come up with better insults. Instead of exchanging pros and cons regarding an issue, we have rhetoric being tossed around at townhalls . And if someone disagrees with something, instead of offering an alternative solution, they decide to shout and insult.

Placing blame has now become more important than fixing the problem. When has it ever mattered whose fault anything is, isn't it more important to fix the problem rather than deciding who caused the problem?

And the only people that benefit from having the "common people" fight amoungst themselves, is the politicians and the groups that are in the politicians pocket. Most politicians care only about their personal stature and income. They all intermingle with the same elites. Wall street for the Dems, and the industrialists for the Reps. democrats or republicans, flip the coin either way we lose. Politics is a penis measuring contest and the general public are the tape measures.

Is debate dead in the US?

Would the rise of actual civilized debates substantially hurt politicians and there agendas?

Is fighting in the "dems vs. reps" mudhole akin arguing over which position we will utilize whilst being taken advantage of by the government?

Can you label yourself as dem or rep and also believe you are a true "independent thinker"?

Do you agree with EVERY point your "party" ascribes to?

I know I sometimes use labels, but mostly its to participate in the conversation at hand. I believe that 98% of people fall somewhere in the "middle of the road" between extreme conservative and extreme liberal. Its just too bad that the extremists on either side are the ones with better access to microphones and podiums. And some just don't want to be labeled as un-cool by their friends because they believe something different.

Do you use one to redicule and fight republicans and one to redicule and opposse democrats?

Or do you just use one to redicule anyone who follows either "party" to no end.

Some republicans are currently b*tching and moaning about Obama "indoctrinating" children by addressing them in school.

I have to ask, what is so wrong with the president of the USA urging kids to do their best in school and take responsibility for their own educational goals?

I am sure that the people that are upset about Obama addressing schools didn't have any problems with George H W Bush addressing schools. http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers...

Some dems were b*tching and moaning about that speech and the republicans defended the speech.

Newt Gingrich sure didn't have a problem with Bush talking to schools.

"Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?" asked Newt Gingrich. "It was done at a nonpolitical site and was beamed to a nonpolitical audience.."

Ronald Reagan had a Q and A sessions with high school students which was broadcasted to schools. During the speech he went into some political issues including defense funding and taxes. http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/198...

So why was it okay for Reagan and Bush to engage school children in political conversations but not okay for Obama to do so? Its almost like you are more upset that Obama has thoughts and philosophies that are in contrast to your own.... hmmm. The Obama speech is optional by the way, if you don't want your kid to be able to be engaged by the President, than you can get your kid our of school that day. You should probably ask your child if he/she wants to watch the speech. Don't force your opinion on them.